Alfred Brophy poses the titular question (except that he thinks the verb form should be the simple present, third person singular, about which I am not convinced) and argues that:
One of the things that really interests me -- and that Kaimi Wenger has written about --- is how reparations has been de-radicalized in recent years. Legislatures, corporations, and institutions are more willing to engage in discussions about the past (what some people call truth and reconciliation commissions) and issue apologies. That's the non-radical part. The radical part -- which continues to meet stiff restsitance to the extent it's talk about at all -- is money. And that's not going anywhere soon.
At least insofar as corporate reparations are concerned, I trust that the idea will continue to go nowhere. See my post The Immorality of Corporate Reparations, in which I argue that:
As always in corporate accountability, both efficiency and morality require that punishment be directed solely at those who actually commit wrongdoing. In this context, it would be the directors, officers, or controlling shareholders who actually enslaved people. Since they're long dead, there is nobody left who properly can be punished.
